What is the test for an appellate court to accept a factfinder's conclusions that the factfinder might have drawn from circumstantial evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. C. A, H035106, No. JV36277 (Cal. App. 2010):
"An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the [factfinder] might have drawn from... circumstantial evidence." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When the evidence is circumstantial, does the Court have to accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its factual determination for that factual determination? (California, United States of America)
When a finding of fact is challenged on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have any power to substitute its conclusions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, does the court have to accept the findings of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Is an appeal moot when, through no fault of the appellant, an event occurs which makes it impossible for the reviewing court to provide any effective relief to the appellant even when ruling in the appellant's favor? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal review a trial court's ruling to admit evidence over defendant's objection based on evidence section 352? (California, United States of America)
